Help me automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis for this statement: 

Every 12 people should get 1 vote.

Explanation:

The concept of "Every 12 people should get 1 vote" is an alternative voting system that aims to encourage meaningful discussion and consensus-building among voters. This idea draws inspiration from the jury system in the legal realm, where a group of individuals deliberate to reach a unanimous decision.

Proponents of this idea argue that the decision of who to vote for is as crucial as determining someone's guilt or innocence in a court of law. By requiring a group of 12 people to agree on a candidate, this system ensures that the chosen candidate has been thoroughly vetted and represents the best direction for the community or country.

Furthermore, this system encourages people to actively engage in political discussions and defend their beliefs. If individuals cannot persuade others to support their preferred candidate, it suggests that either there is no clear best choice or that some members of the group lack the understanding necessary to make an informed decision. In either case, their vote should not carry the same weight as those who can effectively articulate their positions.

Advocates believe that this system would foster a more informed and engaged electorate. People would be motivated to learn about the issues and candidates to present compelling arguments to their fellow voters. This process of discussion and debate would help individuals develop the skills needed to be constructive members of society.

Moreover, proponents suggest that this system could be tested on a small scale to evaluate its effectiveness. There is no harm in a small community experimenting with this alternative voting method to see if it yields positive results.

To address concerns about the influence of emotions or personal relationships within a small community, the deliberations could take place through online chat rooms or telephone conferences. This would allow for a more diverse group of individuals to participate in the discussion, potentially leading to more objective decision-making.

While this idea may seem unconventional, its supporters believe that it has the potential to create a more thoughtful and collaborative approach to voting. By emphasizing the importance of discussion, debate, and consensus-building, this system could lead to a more engaged and informed electorate, ultimately resulting in better outcomes for society as a whole.

1. Clarify Positions

Reasons to agree:

1. The jury system in the legal realm demonstrates the effectiveness of group deliberation and consensus-building.
2. The decision of who to vote for is as critical as determining guilt or innocence in a court of law.
3. This system ensures that the chosen candidate has been thoroughly vetted and represents the best direction.
4. It encourages people to actively engage in political discussions and defend their beliefs.
5. It fosters a more informed and engaged electorate.
6. This system could be tested on a small scale to evaluate its effectiveness.
7. Online chat rooms or telephone conferences could be used to promote diverse participation and objective decision-making.

Reasons to disagree:

1. This system may lead to the tyranny of the majority, where minority opinions are suppressed.
2. It could result in the disenfranchisement of individuals who are less articulate or persuasive.
3. The process of reaching consensus among 12 people may be time-consuming and impractical on a large scale.
4. It may lead to groupthink, where individuals conform to the majority opinion to avoid conflict.
5. This system may be vulnerable to manipulation by charismatic or influential individuals within the group.

2. Identify Interests

Interests of those who agree:

1. Promoting a more thoughtful and collaborative approach to voting
2. Encouraging informed and engaged political participation
3. Ensuring that elected officials have broad support and represent the best interests of the community

Interests of those who disagree:

1. Protecting the right of every individual to have an equal say in the voting process
2. Ensuring that all voices, including minority opinions, are heard and represented
3. Maintaining a simple and efficient voting system that can be easily implemented on a large scale

Shared interests:

1. Selecting the best candidates who will effectively serve the community or country
2. Encouraging voter participation and engagement in the political process
3. Ensuring fair and democratic elections

3. Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of the Belief

1. The effectiveness of group decision-making in producing better outcomes compared to individual voting
2. The impact of this system on voter participation and engagement
3. The feasibility and scalability of implementing this system in various contexts

4. Analyze Underlying Issues and Root Causes

1. The tension between individual rights and collective decision-making in a democracy
2. The need for a balance between efficiency and thoroughness in the voting process
3. The importance of promoting informed and engaged political participation

5. Identify Unstated Assumptions

1. Assuming that group consensus necessarily leads to better decisions than individual choice
2. Assuming that all individuals within a group have equal power and influence in the decision-making process
3. Assuming that this system can be effectively implemented and scaled across diverse communities and contexts

6. Propose Top-rated Solutions

1. Pilot the "Every 12 people should get 1 vote" system in small communities to assess its effectiveness and identify potential challenges
2. Develop clear guidelines and facilitator training to ensure fair and inclusive group decision-making processes
3. Explore hybrid models that combine elements of individual voting and group deliberation to balance efficiency and thoroughness

7. Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis

Potential Costs of Agreeing:

• Political: Resistance from those who view this system as a threat to individual voting rights (High likelihood, Moderate impact)
• Social: Potential for marginalization of minority opinions within groups (Moderate likelihood, High impact)

Potential Benefits of Agreeing:

• Political: Increased voter engagement and informed decision-making (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Social: Strengthened community bonds through collaborative decision-making (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Costs of Disagreeing:

• Political: Continued voter apathy and disengagement from the political process (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)
• Social: Missed opportunities for fostering a more informed and engaged electorate (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Benefits of Disagreeing:

• Political: Preservation of individual voting rights and equal representation (High likelihood, High impact)
• Practical: Maintaining a simple and efficient voting system (High likelihood, Moderate impact)

8. Identify Key Resources

Best Supporting Evidence (Agreeing):

• Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of jury systems and group decision-making in producing fair outcomes
• Examples of successful small-scale implementations of similar consensus-based voting systems

Best Weakening Evidence (Disagreeing):

• Research highlighting the risks of groupthink and the suppression of minority opinions in group decision-making
• Case studies of the challenges and limitations of implementing consensus-based systems on a large scale

Most Credible Supporters (Agreeing):

• Political scientists and researchers who study alternative voting systems and democratic innovations
• Community leaders and activists who have successfully implemented similar models in their local contexts

Most Credible Opposers (Disagreeing):

• Constitutional scholars and legal experts who argue for the protection of individual voting rights
• Political theorists and practitioners who emphasize the importance of efficient and universally accessible voting systems

9. Analyze Values and Ethics

Values and Ethics of those who agree:

• Prioritizing collective wisdom and collaborative decision-making
• Valuing informed and engaged political participation
• Believing in the power of deliberation and consensus-building to produce better outcomes

Values and Ethics of those who disagree:

• Prioritizing individual autonomy and the right to have an equal say in the voting process
• Valuing efficiency and accessibility in the voting system
• Believing in the importance of protecting minority opinions and preventing tyranny of the majority

10. Review Supporting Media

Supporting the Statement:

• Documentaries or case studies showcasing the effectiveness of consensus-based decision-making in various contexts (e.g., "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki)
• Interviews with political scientists and researchers who advocate for alternative voting systems and democratic innovations

Opposing the Statement:

• News articles or opinion pieces highlighting the potential drawbacks and challenges of implementing a "Every 12 people should get 1 vote" system
• Interviews with constitutional scholars and legal experts who argue for the protection of individual voting rights

11. Explore Alternative Framings

• "A hybrid voting system that combines individual choice with group deliberation can balance efficiency and thoroughness while promoting informed and engaged political participation."
• Equivalency score: Moderate
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: High
• % strength: Moderate
• % specificity: High
• "Pilot testing consensus-based voting models in small communities can provide valuable insights into their effectiveness and potential for scalability."
• Equivalency score: Moderate
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: Moderate
• % strength: Moderate
• % specificity: High